The difference between the two opinions [Bellarmine & Suarez] refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.

Bellarmine and Suarez on The Question of a Heretical Pope

By Robert J. Siscoe

In the February 2014 issue of Catholic Family News, John Salza published a timely and revealing piece on the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with respect to the question of Sedevacantism – a topic on the mind of many today following the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the increasing doctrinal and moral chaos that has ensued. In his article, Mr. Salza mentioned a two-fold opinion with respect to a heretical Pope: that of St. Robert Bellarmine, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office without a sentence from the Church; and that of Suarez, who taught that a heretical Pope loses his office by virtue of a declaration by the Church. In footnote #14, Mr. Salza notes an interesting point about this apparent contradiction:

“It is interesting to note that St. Bellarmine (d. 1621) and Suarez (d. 1617) lived at the same time, and yet both held that their seemingly inapposite opinions were the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors.”

There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the respective opinions of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.

The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office. This is opposed to the opinion of Suarez, and others, who maintain that the judgment of guilt and declaration by the Church cause the loss of office. One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty and then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt and then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical.

These are the two main opinions of theologians with respect to a heretical Pope, and the Church has never made a definitive judgment on which of the two is correct. But what is important to note is that both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – by an ecumenical council, or by the College of Cardinals. The following is taken from Elements of Ecclesiastic Law by Sebastian B. Smith, D.D., Professor of canon law.

“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (1)

As we can see, the difference between the two opinions pertains to the hypothetical question alone (a question of the speculative order) – namely, when and how a heretical Pope loses his office. On the practical level, both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt and declaration must be rendered – and this judgment belongs to the Church, not to individual Catholics. This is a point that every Sedevacantist I have spoken with, or otherwise corresponded with, has missed.

It should be noted that the aforementioned book by Canon Smith was sent to Rome for review. The Preface of the Third Edition explains that Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, “appointed two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the ‘Elements’ and report to him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months, made each a lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect”. Their detailed reports noted five inaccuracies or errors, all of which were corrected in the Third Edition. The citation provided above regarding a heretical Pope was not among the requested revisions. This shows that Rome found no error or inaccuracy in the assertion that a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals” to be considered to have lost his office. Hence, with the approval of Rome, this teaching remained in the revised Third Edition, which is the edition cited above.

It is also worth noting that I have personally drawn attention to this teaching of Canon Smith to a number of well-known Sedevacantist apologists, both priest and laymen, and every single one, without exception, has disagreed with it… but how could they not? Their conclusion (that the post-Conciliar Popes have not been real Popes) forces them to reject it, since accepting it would require that they revise their position. But as is too often the case, when someone embraces an error (in this case a false premise) and then draws erroneous conclusions based on that error, it is very difficult for them to retract it later on - especially when they have spent years and years defending the particular conclusion. If the Sedevacantists accepted the teaching of Canon Smith (which was implicitly approved by Rome), the most they would be able to maintain is that a future Pope or Council might determine that the post-Conciliar Popes were not true Popes, which just so happens to be the position held by Archbishop Lefebvre. Referring to Paul VI and John Paul II, the Archbishop said “one day the Church will have to examine their situation”, and in the end it “might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been Popes (…) it is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church”. I think it is safe to say that the Archbishop would include Benedict XVI and Francis in that statement if he were alive today. Unlike the position of the Sedevacantists, that of Archbishop Lefebvre is in no way at variance with the teaching of Canon Smith.

The teaching of St. Francis De Sales with regarding a heretical Pope is also consistent with that of Canon Smith. In the following quote, St. Francis De Sales (d. 1622), who also lived at the time of Bellarmine and Suarez, refers to both hypothetical opinions mentioned above, as well as the necessity of the Church taking the appropriate action:

"Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric” [Acts 1]. (2)

Notice he says the Church must either deprive him (the opinion of Suarez), or declare him deprived (the opinion of St. Bellarmine). Regardless of which of the two hypothetical opinions one holds, it is not left to individual Catholics to make the judgment; rather, it is “the Church” that “must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric”.

A judgment of guilt must be rendered for a Pope to be considered to have lost his office. This judgment can be made, as we have said, by the Church, or it can be made by the Pope himself should he admit to his guilt. Just as a person who admits to committing a crime does not need a jury to find him guilty, neither would a Pope who openly left the Church, or openly admitted to denying a defined dogma, require a judgment of guilt. But to date, none of the post-Conciliar Popes have openly left the Church or publicly admitted to denying a defined dogma. Therefore, a judgment of guilt by the proper authorities would be necessary for them to be considered to have lost their office. The private opinion of individual Catholics, who personally consider the Pope to be a manifest heretic, does not suffice. This is confirmed by John of St. Thomas (d. 1644), who also lived at the time of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. Here is what he had to say about a Pope who is judged by individual Catholics to be a manifest heretic:

"St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned" (John of St. Thomas). (4)

It is one thing for Catholics living through the post-Conciliar nightmare to have the opinion that a future Pope or council will condemn the post-Conciliar Popes as heretics, as the Council of Constantinople did with Pope Honorius I, or perhaps declare that they lost their office while still living due to heresy, which would then render the Acts of their Pontificates null; but it is another thing altogether for individual Catholics to declare that they are not true Popes, simply because they personally consider them to be manifestly heretical.

Another question that arises is whether or not a heretical Pope would retain his authority if he had not been publicly declared guilty of heresy by the proper authorities and removed from office. Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., who also lived at the time of Bellarmine and Suarez, addressed this very point. Fr. Laymann was considered one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his day. He served as a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt from 1603 to 1609, Professor of Moral Theology at the Jesuit house in Munich from 1609 to 1625, and as a Professor of Canon Law at the University of Dillingen from 1625 to 1632. In the following quote, which was written less than 70 years after Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the distinguished Professor of Canon Law wrote the following about a heretical Pope who was being tolerated by the Church:

“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy and even a notorious one, by reason of which he would merit to be deposed by the Church [opinion of Suarez], or rather, declared to be separated from her [opinion of Bellarmine]. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he were tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees will have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (5)

Manifest Heresy

Another important point that needs clarification is what St. Bellarmine meant by the term “manifest heretic”. When he said “a pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope”, he was not referring merely to a Pope that has made materially heretical statements, or to a Pope who has given reason to believe he has lost the faith; manifest heresy requires something more: since heresy, properly so-called, requires pertinacity in the will (not simply an error in the intellect), in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest. Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position. The other way, according to St. Bellarmine, is for the Pope to remain obstinate after two warnings. Only then would pertinacity be sufficiently demonstrated to render the Pope a manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine bases this on [mistakenly said “in”] the authority of St. Paul.

“[I]n the first place” wrote Bellarmine, “it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) Therefore… the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.” (6)

As we can see, according to Bellarmine a manifest heretic is one who remains obstinate “after two warnings”. Such manifest obstinancy reveals pertinacity in the will, which is necessary for a materially heretical statement to qualify as formal heresy in the external forum. By remaining obstinate after a solemn and public warning, the Pope would, in a sense, pass judgment upon himself, thereby showing himself to be a heretic properly so-called. It is for this reason, according to Bellarmine, that the Pope – “who judges all and is judged by no one” – can himself be judged and punished by the Church.

But the question arises: who would have the authority to issue a solemn and public warning to the Pope? The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, addressed this very point. He wrote: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune”. Then, after citing St. Paul’s letter to Titus (the same portion St. Bellarmine cited as his authority), Fr. Ballerini added:

“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)

By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.

Conclusion

Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."

This demonstrates the wisdom and prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre, who, while not ruling out the possibility that a future Pope or council might determine that the post-Conciliar occupants of the Chair of Peter “had not been Popes”, left the final judgment to the Church, rather than rendering a public judgment he had no authority to make – especially given the fact that the Church has never declared that a Pope who falls into manifest heresy loses his office ipso facto, rather than by virtue of a judgment and declaration by the Church.

Notes:

1) Smith, Sebastian B. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (revised third edition), New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1881. Within that quote from Canonist Smith he provides two footnotes. Footnotes #70 references Craiss., n. 6S2. Footnote number 71 references Phillips, Kirchenr., vol. i., pp. 277, 274. If anyone has either of these books, please contact me by e-mail at RSiscoeTX@aol.com.2) St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, [Tan Books] pg 305-306.3) De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, pg. 316-3174) John of St. Thomas, Disp. II, art III 265) Laymann, Theol. Mor., Lib, tract . I, cap, VII, pp. 145-146, 1625. Cited in the book Can Popes Go Bad, by De Silveira, pg. 876) De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 307) De Potestate Ecclesiastica, pgs.104-105 St. Thomas explains what is required for a judgment to be lawful: “Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful.” ST II-II Q 60, A29) St. Thomas said: “Since judgment should be pronounced according to the written law, as stated above, he that pronounces judgment, interprets, in a way, the letter of the law, by applying it to some particular case. Now since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community.” He went on to say: “Wherefore even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority, so too it is unjust if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than the public authority.” (S.T. Pt II-II, Q 60, A 6)

From the April 2014 Catholic Family News

– –

Subscribe to Catholic Family Newsa traditional Catholic monthly print journal faithful to what the Church has taught"in the same meaning and in the same explanation" for 2000 years.

_________________Yours in JMJ,Mike

Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:29 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Apparently Robert Siscoe thinks that there is value in fighting long-defunct battles. For example, Paul VI may have been truly pope then lost his office by heresy. In that case it makes sense to discuss whether a pope can fall into heresy, whether such a pope would lose his office, and why and when this would occur. Today, on the other hand, we are faced with a man that no instructed Catholic appears to recognise as anything but a heretic, who has popped up and laid claim to the papacy, and instead of discussing whether such a man could conceivably be accepted as pope, the truly glaring and primary problem is totally ignored, the fact assumed without the slightest explicit reference. This fellow is not serious.

Perhaps when a woman claims the papacy some of these people will spare us these truly vacuous arguments and we can have a serious conversation about what has happened to the Catholic Church. Or perhaps not.

Robert Siscoe wrote:

On the practical level, both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt and declaration must be rendered – and this judgment belongs to the Church, not to individual Catholics. This is a point that every Sedevacantist I have spoken with, or otherwise corresponded with, has missed.

Goodness. He repeats the unfounded assertion of every anti-sedevacantist for the past forty years (especially Michael Davies, but also virtually every priest of the SSPX who has touched the issue) and then claims that this is something new???

Truly bizarre.

So, firstly he tells the world we have "missed" what we've been discussing with great energy for decades; then he puffs an obscure manual of canon law by noting that it has a Roman imprimatur (with such a procedure, we could add 500% to the number of theses to be considered dogmas); finally he absolutely falsifies the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who himself was openly preparing at one stage to declare that John Paul II was not truly pope, and published a lengthy text laying out his reasoning, making no mention of any requirement of the Church to intervene.

He has missed elementary distinctions:

Quote:

Notice he says the Church must either deprive him (the opinion of Suarez), or declare him deprived (the opinion of St. Bellarmine). Regardless of which of the two hypothetical opinions one holds, it is not left to individual Catholics to make the judgment; rather, it is “the Church” that “must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric”.

There's a gaping distinction between somebody vacating an office and another being appointed or elected to that same office. The law of the Church makes this abundantly clear, if it isn't already as clear by pure reason as anything could be. According to Suarez and his school, a true pope who became a heretic would remain pope until and unless judged by the Church; according to Bellarmine and his school, such a true pope would fall by the very fact from the papacy, without any intervention of the Church. All agree that before a new pope could be elected, the fact of the existing vacancy must be declared by the Church, but this is utterly irrelevant to the question at issue. It's a perfectly distinct additional question. This new question does not even arise until subsequent to any vacancy, however that occurs. St. Francis de Sales is completely clear on this. He certainly doesn't support Siscoe's opinion.

Apparently there is nothing new under the sun.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:09 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

The judgment of who is the pope is not in the private domain, but what he can teach is??? I get to determine what in these "pope's" teachings is tradition or not using my private judgment, as long as I don't use my private judgment to determine if they are really popes or if a true pope could actually teach this.

But if I am determining doctrine for myself, why do I need a pope in the first place other than for pretty pictures in the entryway at church??? If I am telling the pope what he can teach and when he is or is not teaching, it would seem to me the role of chief and indian is switched. For that matter why did Christ create a perpetual papacy if we just need to hold to tradition. Maybe the Protestants are almost right in just hanging on to a bible, they just forgot to hang on to tradition too. It would give them something additional to argue about anyway. They could argue about what is in the tradition of the Church on top of the meaning of the scriptural passages. If Luther had only known

Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:25 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

James, that's a bit unfair, but it's a good way to get people thinking.

The real position of the sedeplenist trad on the question of authority, I think, is essentially Greek "Orthodoxy" + solemn definitions. So it doesn't really matter who the pope is or what he does, just as it doesn't really matter who the Patriarch of Constantinople is or what he does. He has no real governing authority and his perceived orthodoxy is utterly irrelevant except as a point of violent debate amongst oriental schismatics - i.e. his position in relation to his followers is identical to that of Francis vis a vis traditional Catholics. This farce can continue without the slightest difficulty, apparently, just so long as the pope doesn't solemnly define that Hell has been abolished.

For those who are tempted by Robert Siscoe's argument, Canon 188:4 says explicitly that any heretic loses his office without any declaration. An awkward text if the real position of the Church is that a heretic only loses his office with a declaration. Perhaps Mr. Siscoe could have a look at the commentaries on that canon and let the readers of the CFN know what he finds...

Also, what's his bottom line? Why the effort to prove sedevacantism to be unlawful? Well, it seems that the momentus, grave, point is to stop people saying out loud that Francis isn't pope. We can think it. We can believe that one day the Church will declare that he was not pope after all. We can ignore him, sift his doctrine for orthodox bits (a purely academic exercise - nobody suggests seriously that we should actually learn from him!). But we need to keep our views secret. I have to say, it all seems a great deal of effort for not much point.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:11 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Robert Siscoe wrote:

But the question arises: who would have the authority to issue a solemn and public warning to the Pope? The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, addressed this very point. He wrote: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune”. Then, after citing St. Paul’s letter to Titus (the same portion St. Bellarmine cited as his authority), Fr. Ballerini added:

“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)

By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.

Readers are invited to compare the excerpts from Ballerini selected by Mr. Siscoe with the following, more complete, passage:

Quote:

A peril for the faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported for long. Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). That is to say, he who has been corrected once or twice and does not change his mind, but is pertinacious in an opinion opposed to a manifest or defined dogma: by this public pertinacity of his, he not only cannot by any means be excused from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity; but also openly declares himself a heretic, that is, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic Faith, and from the Church, by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:10 pm

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Your right John, I was being a bit facetious. I was just trying to emphasize the importance of an infallible teaching authority, the proximate rule of faith, and without this authority, even if we have the remote rules of faith in scripture and tradition, we are no closer to the truth than the Protestants. It all comes to the question of who is the infallible authority of the Church. If I am determining whether Pope’s teaching is infallible because it is what I think is true then who is the infallible authority in the Church. Is it the Pope or me?

It never ceases to amaze me that these recognize and resist authors describe sedevacantists as Catholics looking to depose a pope. We have no desire to do such but have no alternative as to claim man for our head destroys the holiness and infallibility of Holy Mother the Church. The holiness and infallibility of Holy Mother the Church we know to be metaphysically certain, that a particular man is the pope only morally certain. What is morally certain falls under the judgment of the mind and intellect of men, and we as men can only judge by external facts as only God can judge the interior.

Sedeocupantists have made a judgment that he is the pope based on external criteria. Sedevacantists have by the same token judged him not to be by manifest facts. The fact of whether someone is the pope or not, is in the Church or not must be based on external criteria, things we humans can observe in the exterior forum. If someone is a pope or whether someone is in the Church were left to the internal forum to be viewed by God alone, Catholics would never know who were the visible members or the visible authority in Christ’s Church. In essence then Christ’s Church would not be a visible society of men, but necessarily would become as the Protestants’ claim an invisible society of believers, an invisible Church.

Now the claim has been made sedevacantists cannot judge who is in the Church and who is not for sedevacantists could never be 100% sure on their conclusion. God, however, could never demand that we be 100% sure, metaphysically certain, in matters not pertaining to faith or morals for to be metaphysically certain would require us to be capable to judge the interior, something which requires Divine abilities. It is then by exterior actions we judge whether someone is in the Church or not.If a friend of yours was a Packer fan, but after not talking to him for several years, you were to meet him at a football game where he was wearing a Viking’s jersey, booing the Packers when they scored, and cheering when the Vikings scored, would it be unreasonable to judge he is no longer a Packer fan. Am I metaphysically certain? Did my friend explicitly say so? No, but I believe a reasonable person would make the judgment that he is no longer a Packers fan. And if after the game he got on the loud speaker and announced what an outstanding game the Vikings played and it was wonderful that they won, wouldn’t that add to the weight of moral certainty. Obviously an analogy only goes so far. But to top it off the Sedevacantists are metaphysically certain these men are not pope’s for if they were then Christ’s Church has failed and that is something all good Catholic should know can never happen.

Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:09 am

Caminus

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pmPosts: 53

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

James Schroepfer wrote:

If I am determining whether Pope’s teaching is infallible because it is what I think is true then who is the infallible authority in the Church. Is it the Pope or me?

Did you not do this very thing before in judging his errors in order to determine he was or is a heretic excluded from the Church? After all, you accept a priori that the Pope reigned at some point in time otherwise he would have nothing to lose. In the interim, you were certainly "sifting" his teachings then. Was he a cardboard Pope for you at the time or a legitimate pontiff?

Quote:

It never ceases to amaze me that these recognize and resist authors describe sedevacantists as Catholics looking to depose a pope. We have no desire to do such but have no alternative as to claim man for our head destroys the holiness and infallibility of Holy Mother the Church. The holiness and infallibility of Holy Mother the Church we know to be metaphysically certain, that a particular man is the pope only morally certain. What is morally certain falls under the judgment of the mind and intellect of men, and we as men can only judge by external facts as only God can judge the interior.

You don't think a legitimate Pope could injure the Church in any way?

Quote:

Sedeocupantists have made a judgment that he is the pope based on external criteria. Sedevacantists have by the same token judged him not to be by manifest facts.

Do you seriously think that assenting to a dogmatic or legal fact is epistemologically equal to denying said fact?

Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:56 am

Caminus

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pmPosts: 53

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Quote:

Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). That is to say, he who has been corrected once or twice and does not change his mind, but is pertinacious in an opinion opposed to a manifest or defined dogma: by this public pertinacity of his, he not only cannot by any means be excused from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity; but also openly declares himself a heretic, that is, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic Faith, and from the Church, by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church.

The gist of the quote is that the Pope, in opposing the reasonable pressure to repent, shows himself to be pertinacious. The basic idea is that some action of authority is necessary in the process described.

Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:04 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Caminus wrote:

James Schroepfer wrote:

If I am determining whether Pope’s teaching is infallible because it is what I think is true then who is the infallible authority in the Church. Is it the Pope or me?

Did you not do this very thing before in judging his errors in order to determine he was or is a heretic excluded from the Church?

I think that the common ground we have is that we accept with divine and catholic faith the things proposed by the Church, then we are asked to accept new doctrines which conflict with those already received, or (more frequently at and since Vatican II) we are asked to regard dogmatic truths as uncertain, either of which constitutes heresy. The Christian mind then seeks to resolve the contradiction and simply has to find a solution. Either he apostatises, or he rejects the new doctrines or the new doubt. Then, going further, he asks how can apparently legitimate authority demand unlawful acts? There are several answers, the main two of which are that the apparent authority is not truly so, or that the true authority has not acted properly (i.e. has not truly sought to bind us to the new doubt or denial). Here, obviously, we part ways.

The sedevacantist solution carries the potential of error insofar as the individual becomes confused and elevates his own judgement to that of the Church (i.e. dogmatic sedevacantism). The sedeplenist solution tends to endanger all manner of proper understanding of the nature of authority, the indefectibility of the Church, etc. I have made it clear elsewhere that I do not think that the sedeplenist solution, if held within its proper, minimal, bounds, has to involve the denial of truths relating to the Church and her indefectibility, but almost no sedeplenist theorist, if any, maintains those proper bounds. It's a terrible mess out there in sedeplenist land.

Caminus wrote:

After all, you accept a priori that the Pope reigned at some point in time otherwise he would have nothing to lose. In the interim, you were certainly "sifting" his teachings then. Was he a cardboard Pope for you at the time or a legitimate pontiff?

Human acts involve time as an essential element. An appropriate amount of it during which judgement is suspended, is required in order to form a certain judgement about any complex matter. The problem with sedeplenism is not that it refuses, for a time, what an apparently true pope is proposing authoritatively. The problem is the dogmatisation of that refusal by wrecking the entire concept of an authoritative magisterium. That's what James is criticising, I think, and rightly so.

Caminus wrote:

Do you seriously think that assenting to a dogmatic or legal fact is epistemologically equal to denying said fact?

I do. In any case where one must act by assenting or refusing to assent to a doctrinal or moral proposition, the assent or refusal of assent is of the same order, epistemologically and morally, no? Either way one must form a judgement and then act upon it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:07 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Caminus wrote:

Quote:

Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). That is to say, he who has been corrected once or twice and does not change his mind, but is pertinacious in an opinion opposed to a manifest or defined dogma: by this public pertinacity of his, he not only cannot by any means be excused from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity; but also openly declares himself a heretic, that is, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic Faith, and from the Church, by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church.

The gist of the quote is that the Pope, in opposing the reasonable pressure to repent, shows himself to be pertinacious. The basic idea is that some action of authority is necessary in the process described.

No, the gist of the idea is absolutely that for any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold, and the admonition therefore doesn't have to come from authority. The whole thrust of the passage would be perverted if Siscoe's understanding were imposed upon it. Such a reading makes Ballerini a moron, unable to write the simplest thing clearly. When he means "the private individual can act if there has already been an authoritative admonition" he says all manner of other, apparently incompatible things, and omits to say that one thing that he really meant. Seriously? I mean, you guys really demonstrate how a biased mind can read anything into anything.

Keep in mind that we know from other sources that even the Church herself does not consistently issue authoritative admonitions before forming an authoritative judgement of guilt in the case of heresy. So if she doesn't require it for her own, legal, processes, why should she expect it of individuals forming judgements purely for their own safety?

Here is da Silveira explaining this point:

Quote:

Is A Warning Necessary In A Case Of Heresy By Actions?

Saint Paul insists that the heretic be rebuked once or twice before being avoided (cf. Titus 3;10). How then can one dare to claim that someone becomes a heretic by the mere fact of practising certain actions. When the canonists affirm that one can fall into the sin of heresy by practising certain actions, they neither say nor suggest that the other conditions required in the case of heresy by word cease to apply. Consequently a warning is necessary as a rule on the one hypothesis, just as much as on the other.

We say "as a rule" because the principle which Saint Paul states admits of an important exception. Commentators teach that the warning insisted on by the Apostle of the Gentiles serves to expose the sinner who denies a truth of the Faith, a truth which cannot, on any pretext, be denied. Yet the Church nevertheless has the prime concern of avoiding all ambiguity when she denounces the Heretical Animus.

Now there are cases in which there can be no such ambiguity. There are cases in which the heretic quite obviously knows that the truth which he denies or doubts is "de fide". There is no possibility, for example, that a doctor of theology might be unaware that Our Lady's Virginity is a dogma.

On the other hand, in a conversation or a lecture, even a doctor of theology can inadvertently let slip an incorrect expression which of itself would constitute heresy. Indeed it can be accepted that even with a book which he has written, and over which he has carefully pondered, a mistake may have slipped in without his noticing. But if the central thesis of the book is manifestly heretical, then it is no longer possible to accept a mistake, or an oversight. A warning would be superfluous.

De Lugo, quoting great writers of his day, unravels this important question as follows - "...Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. For if it could be established in some other way, given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circumstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church. If he knew the subject through books and conciliar definitions much better than he could know it by the declarations of someone admonishing him then there would be no reason to insist on a further warning for him to become pertinacious against the Church." (De Lugo, disp.XX, sect.IV,n.l57-158). See also: Diana, resol.36; Vermeersch, pg.245; Noldin, vol.i, "Compl. de Poenis Eccl.", pg.21; Regatillo, pg. 508.

Such a teaching, it might be objected, is found in the textbooks, but it has not been retained by the Code of Canon Law which establishes in canon 2233 n.2 the precise manner in which the accused must be rebuked and warned before any censure may be imposed.

This objection does not stand up, because this canon applies only to "ferendae sententiae" censures, ie. those which are inflicted by the superior or by the ecclesiastical judge. When the censure is "latae sententiae", that is to say when the accused incurs it automatically by the fact of having committed a certain crime, the warning is not necessary. In this case, as a fine old legal maxim has it, "Lex interpellat pro homine", the law calls to account, instead of the man (cf. Palazzini, col. 1298).

The excommunication which falls on the heretic is "latae sententiae" (Canon 2314 n.l). It becomes clear, as a consequence of this, that the Code of Canon Law has also accepted the principle that a warning is not always necessary for pertinacity to be revealed.

Honestly, Caminus, anybody disputing this point truly has no idea what he is talking about.

Just have an honest and serious look at Canon 188,4 and ask yourself what the Church truly meant by it. It reads, "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." Do you seriously propose that what that text means is "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any [further] declaration if a cleric... has been judged publicly by the Church as a heretic"? If so, then the Church is utterly unclear in her fundamental, universal, legal texts, even after 2000 years of development; further, her canonists haven't noticed this requirement for a forced and weird interpretation (that is, you have no authorities). Does the Church speak of a tacit resignation when in fact she really means that she removes an office by judging the culprit guilty of heresy? Your theory is utterly incompatible with the texts and with the authorities.

I apologise for my lack of patience but there's really no excuse for people like Siscoe writing such rubbish for the faithful. No sense of responsibility!

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:25 am

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Quote:

Caminus: Do you seriously think that assenting to a dogmatic or legal fact is epistemologically equal to denying said fact?

I cannot think of a better way to sum it up so I will defer to what John already wrote in response.

Quote:

Caminus: Did you not do this very thing before in judging his errors in order to determine he was or is a heretic excluded from the Church? After all, you accept a priori that the Pope reigned at some point in time otherwise he would have nothing to lose. In the interim, you were certainly "sifting" his teachings then. Was he a cardboard Pope for you at the time or a legitimate pontiff?

In so far as judging doctrine, the sedevacantist does not judge doctrine but judges what is and is not doctrine based on the criteria dictated by Holy Mother the Church. The question he asks is does Holy Mother the Church teach this or not; the question is not is this true or not. The judgment of whether a man’s universal teaching is infallible or not is not grounded upon what a sedevacantist believes to be true, but based on the fact of whether the man teaching is the supreme authority of the Church, the Roman Pontiff, and teaching as such.

I do not accept the priori that all the recent men who put on the white cassock were at some point actually popes for if they were manifest heretics prior to the election, they could never have lawfully assumed the office. Even if there was an interim where I had doubt in regards to a man’s claim to the Papal throne, I cannot sift questionable authoritative teachings but must resolve the former doubt first. I am morally obligated to do such because my belief in these teachings rest upon this conclusion. And upon reaching moral certitude in the matter, my acceptance of this man’s universal teachings must be based on whether the man was a true Roman Pontiff. The criteria of if these teachings are true is founded on a man’s status as the authority of the Church, not on if I believe his teaching to be true.

Now a sedeplenist can hold his position, as John points out, without denying any truths of the faith if it is done in a proper sense. This is as long as they dispute points of fact not doctrine. If one rejects the New Code of Canon law because he can demonstrate it was never promulgated for the universal Church, this would be a dispute of fact. The rejection of the New Code of Canon law grounded upon my rejection of the teaching of Holy Mother the Church on the infallibility of her universal laws would be a denial of doctrine. To my understanding to deny the infallibility of the Church’s universal laws, while not heresy, would still be erroneous and objectively a mortal sin.

The sedevacantist at the same point must limit his judgment to those of fact not doctrine hence eliminating the danger of becoming a dogmatic sedevacantist. He must confine his judgment to be if it is a pope’s infallible teaching not if the teaching is true or to be taken in a different sense. It is again a judgment of fact not doctrine. When a pope teaches something under the guise of infallibility which directly contradicts a known doctrine of the Catholic faith, a person is left at a logical impasse to accept both as true. Truth cannot contradict itself therefore logically only one of these teachings can be true. Given the Church is indefectible, the former must be true for if it is not, the Church failed years ago. It logically must be the latter then which is necessarily false. It then follows that my judgment of the fact that this latter doctrine is infallible taught by a true Roman Pontiff must have some defect in it. As John so beautifully put it, this is where the sedeplenist and sedevacantist part ways.

Quote:

John Lane: I think that the common ground we have is that we accept with divine and catholic faith the things proposed by the Church, then we are asked to accept new doctrines which conflict with those already received, or (more frequently at and since Vatican II) we are asked to regard dogmatic truths as uncertain, either of which constitutes heresy. The Christian mind then seeks to resolve the contradiction and simply has to find a solution. Either he apostatises, or he rejects the new doctrines or the new doubt. Then, going further, he asks how can apparently legitimate authority demand unlawful acts? There are several answers, the main two of which are that the apparent authority is not truly so, or that the true authority has not acted properly (i.e. has not truly sought to bind us to the new doubt or denial). Here, obviously, we part ways.

The sedevacantist solution carries the potential of error insofar as the individual becomes confused and elevates his own judgement to that of the Church (i.e. dogmatic sedevacantism). The sedeplenist solution tends to endanger all manner of proper understanding of the nature of authority, the indefectibility of the Church, etc. I have made it clear elsewhere that I do not think that the sedeplenist solution, if held within its proper, minimal, bounds, has to involve the denial of truths relating to the Church and her indefectibility, but almost no sedeplenist theorist, if any, maintains those proper bounds. It's a terrible mess out there in sedeplenist land.

But again the proper sedeplenist position of this contrary teaching must be that it was not promulgated based on a defect in its promulgation as prescribed by Holy Mother the Church, not because it is personally believed to be false. The error of the teaching can be a symptom, but it cannot be the cause. Obvious I disagree with even the proper sedeplenist position as to my understanding for instance there is no defect in the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law if John Paul II was really the pope. But I am no authority in the Church so I cannot legally determine facts which others must believe upon my authority.

Quote:

Caminus: You don't think a legitimate Pope could injure the Church in any way?

Materially, yes a pope could harm the accidentals of the Church (i.e. the destruction of Church property), but he cannot harm the substance of the Church. A pope in his private capacity who by mistake said something erroneous certainly could cause scandal, or if he were morally depraved, he could cause scandal to the weak or ignorant. However, his action never could cause the Church to become scandalous for the act would be his; it would not be her action, and it would be in opposition to her teaching. Those who truly know her would not be scandalized. And those ignorant of her, while being scandalized, it would be scandal of the weak which arises from their ignorance not from the Church herself. The fault of scandal then remains theirs, and Holy Mother the Church remains without blemish.

Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:44 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John,

You cite da Silveira in support of your position, yet de Silveira is not a Sedevacantist. Therefore, he obviously does not consider the post-Conciliar Popes to have tacitly resigned from office due to a public defection from the Faith. Once again we have you, Joe Layman in the pew, privately interpreting and applying canon law to a specific case, even though you have no authority to do so. And then you cite an authority in support of your position who disagrees with your conclusion.

Here's what the authority you cited recently said about Sedevacantism:

Quote:

1. I am not, nor have I ever been sede-vacantist even if some inattentive commentators have sought to see traits of sede-vacantism in the study on the theological possibility of a heretical Pope, which is part of my book, La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI, Qu’en Penser? (1) Based on sound traditional dogmatic theology, regarding the Pontificates of the last decades, I do not see how it would be theologically possible to declare the See of Peter vacant at any moment. (2) If Divine Providence gives me the strength, I will soon publish a study on the theological errors of current sede-vacantist theories. (De Silveira )

Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:59 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

James, what a thoroughly beautiful answer!

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:12 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

John,

You cite da Silveira in support of your position, yet de Silveira is not a Sedevacantist. Therefore, he obviously does not consider the post-Conciliar Popes to have tacitly resigned from office due to a public defection from the Faith.

Dear RJS,

This is not an answer to the reply I have given above. Ballerini is on our side.

Let's just be clear about that for a start. Ballerini states that for anybody St. Paul's instructions apply. That is, to the pope's inferiors - that is his summary point. Then he gives some examples of those inferiors who might most likely, conveniently, and best, issue such admonitions. He begins at the top of the hierarchy of inferiors, and moves down the list. Then he points out that in such a circumstance the culprit would have no excuse and would declare himself a heretic by his own mouth. There's no hint of an exception for laymen, as if only clerics or office-holders could issue an admonition, and surely if that were a point he wished to make he would add that, at least as an aside. He doesn't. It isn't what he is saying. He has already said that Titus 3:10 applies to all. History furnishes plenty of examples supporting this view. (For example, and most famously, the layman Eusebius admonishing, and judging as a heretic, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Eusebius was praised by all. His judgement was confirmed by the pope. See if you can find any hint of criticism of him by anybody, ever.)

Further, Paul VI was admonished by clerics and by office-holders (e.g. Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, et al, and most thoroughly and in legal form by the Abbe de Nantes). So in actual fact the point is moot.

RJS wrote:

Once again we have you, Joe Layman in the pew, privately interpreting and applying canon law to a specific case, even though you have no authority to do so. And then you cite an authority in support of your position who disagrees with your conclusion.

Da Silveira's book, if you read it, proves our position, that of St. Robert Bellarmine, most skilfully and clearly. Then he hesitates and based upon some factual errors and one canonical error (see page 54 here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Pope_Bad.pdf ) he says that Christ would sustain the jurisdiction of a heretic until and unless a declaration were issued. He has no authority for this, and admits it. He is a wonderfully honest, and therefore transparent, writer. Instead of the argument from authority, which he cannot find, he produces a syllogism of his own. So his argument is an argument from reason, not authority. He believes that it is derived from authority, of course, because after all he is a good Catholic, but it is still entirely his own argument, for which he cites no authority at all. Indeed, he begins by admitting that there is no authority for it.

Da Silveira wrote:

4. The central question

Here is planted, then, the central question: could there be circumstances in which one can or one must say that Our Lord established that he would sustain, at least for some time, the jurisdiction of an eventually heretical Pope?

There exists nothing, in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, which constitutes a secure and definite answer to that question.

So much for the absence of proof from authority. I'll let you read him further in his own book if you want his own argument. But since he's a layman, you won't give it any weight, right?

That was only half a joke. Let me put the point in unmistakeable terms for you. Da Silveira himself admits that he is, ultimately, differing with Bellarmine. So we have Bellarmine on the one hand, and Da Silveira on the other. The former is a Doctor of the Church, the latter a layman. Will you really choose to follow the layman? (Yes, you will. Sorry!)

In two footnotes, Da Silveria adds to the fact that his theory is unsupported by authority. In the first, he shows that his notion of "sustained jurisdiction" is a novelty. In the second, he admits that the authors are against him, especially St. Robert Bellarmine, then proceeds to declare, without proof, that the Code is on his side. It isn't. He has mistaken the provisions of the Code dealing with penalties with the section of the Code dealing with offices. The two sections are separated by something like half the entire Code, and while they obviously affect each other the notion of a tacit resignation is not penal, it is the recognition of a consequence flowing from divine law.

Da Silveira wrote:

10. Normally it is said that, in certain cases provided for by Law, the jurisdiction of him who does not have it is “supplied” by the Pope or by the Church. In the hypothesis of a common error, for example, the church “supplies” the inexistent jurisdiction, as canon 209 disposes. However, according to what the authors teach, the “supplied” jurisdiction only exists as “act”, and not as “habit” (Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, tom. II, 281, n. 387; Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., tom. II, pp. 367-368; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit. Iuris Can., tom. I, p. 278). Now, in the hypothesis which we are discussing, the jurisdiction would exist as a “habit”, and not only as an “act”. To our knowledge there is no technical term which indicates such a juridical situation. Such being the case, we say that the jurisdiction is then “sustained” in the person of the heretic.

11. Some authors, above all ancient ones, do not consider that, for the sake of an eminent interest of souls or of the Church, jurisdiction can be “sustained” in the heretic. For this reason, even Saint Robert Bellarmine, as we pointed out in note 15 of page 46, seems to deny the possibility of the permanence of jurisdiction in a manifest heretic - a permanence, that, which the practice of the Church in the last centuries, above all in relation to heretic Bishops not yet deposed, obliges one to admit as legitimate.

RJS wrote:

Here's what the authority you cited recently said about Sedevacantism:

Quote:

1. I am not, nor have I ever been sede-vacantist even if some inattentive commentators have sought to see traits of sede-vacantism in the study on the theological possibility of a heretical Pope, which is part of my book, La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI, Qu’en Penser? (1) Based on sound traditional dogmatic theology, regarding the Pontificates of the last decades, I do not see how it would be theologically possible to declare the See of Peter vacant at any moment. (2) If Divine Providence gives me the strength, I will soon publish a study on the theological errors of current sede-vacantist theories. (De Silveira )

This is not news. It was published on these forums some time ago, when he first wrote that. He's a good man, let's see what he comes out with, if anything. He certainly needs more that what he wrote in the late 1960s on this question. Also, there are indeed many "sedevacantist errors" and there's an entire sub-section of this Web site devoted to them, so he may well write a great many true and salutary things under that title!

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:51 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

For the sake of completeness I will answer this assertion of Da Silveira:

Quote:

Some authors, above all ancient ones, do not consider that, for the sake of an eminent interest of souls or of the Church, jurisdiction can be “sustained” in the heretic. For this reason, even Saint Robert Bellarmine, as we pointed out in note 15 of page 46, seems to deny the possibility of the permanence of jurisdiction in a manifest heretic - a permanence, that, which the practice of the Church in the last centuries, above all in relation to heretic Bishops not yet deposed, obliges one to admit as legitimate.

His theory - and it is, without possibility of dispute, his own - is mistaken. He notices that the Church is reluctant to act immediately against heretical bishops and that she nevertheless treats their jurisdiction as intact during that period after their disappearance into heresy but before their authoritative deposition from office. Da Silveria ascribes this to his novel notion, the "sustaining" of jurisdiction in one who radically, as he puts it, cannot possess habitual jurisdiction. This inference is entirely unnecessary and conflicts with the explicit teaching of the Fathers, and of course, following them, Bellarmine. So what is the explanation? An obvious answer is that there always exists in such cases common error, so that the acts of such a putative heretic are valid by virtue of Canon 209 until and unless that common error is cleared away, which is precisely what an authoritative declaration does. This solution fits all of the best authorities and conflicts with no canonical or doctrinal truth. It is elegant and sufficient. With it any difficulties evaporate.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:09 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

RJS wrote:

John,

You cite da Silveira in support of your position, yet de Silveira is not a Sedevacantist. Therefore, he obviously does not consider the post-Conciliar Popes to have tacitly resigned from office due to a public defection from the Faith.

Dear RJS,

This is not an answer to the reply I have given above. Ballerini is on our side.

Let's just be clear about that for a start. Ballerini states that for anybody St. Paul's instructions apply. That is, to the pope's inferiors - that is his summary point. Then he gives some examples of those inferiors who might most likely, conveniently, and best, issue such admonitions. He begins at the top of the hierarchy of inferiors, and moves down the list. Then he points out that in such a circumstance the culprit would have no excuse and would declare himself a heretic by his own mouth. There's no hint of an exception for laymen, as if only clerics or office-holders could issue an admonition, and surely if that were a point he wished to make he would add that, at least as an aside. He doesn't. It isn't what he is saying. He has already said that Titus 3:10 applies to all. History furnishes plenty of examples supporting this view. (For example, and most famously, the layman Eusebius admonishing, and judging as a heretic, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Eusebius was praised by all. His judgement was confirmed by the pope. See if you can find any hint of criticism of him by anybody, ever.)

My comments will be directed primarily to the underlines portion.

To begin with, we need to clarify our respective positions, as well as the specific instruction given by St. Paul.

Firstly, St. Paul’s instruction is to avoid the heretic who has been warned once or twice. I agree with that teaching. In fact, I would go even further by saying that Pope Francis, who is, by all appearances, a heretic, should absolutely be avoided, even though I have not personally warned him. I think the circumstances of our present day (mass media and instant communications) justify this position. I believe the amount of information available eliminates the absolute necessity of one or two warnings, which in normal times would be necessary to form the requisite judgment to justify the actions.

Now, regarding our respective positions: Your position is that you have the authority to publicly declare that a man 1) elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope, and 2) recognized by virtually all Catholics as Pope, and 3) prayed for in the canon by virtually all priests and Bishops of the world, is not a true Pope. That is you position and Ballerini doesn’t even allude to it. So saying he agrees with your position is not correct.

The R&R position maintains that, since these Popes are, by all visible evidence, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and in all likelihood heretics (at least in the internal forum), they should be avoided. This position is based on the words of our Lord who said to beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, and on the authority of St. Paul (discussed above) who said to avoid the heretic. The adherents of R&R don’t claim to have the authority to publicly declare these men to have lost their office due to heresy, but they do have the authority to personally avoid them.

I say Ballerini supports the R&R position, not your position. If you disagree, show me where Ballerinin said a laymen in the pew has the authority, not only to avoid a man he personally judges to be a heretic, but can go further by publicly declaring that the man has lost his office due to heresy. If you can’t show that, you will need to admit that Ballerini does not agree with your position.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:53 am

Caminus

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pmPosts: 53

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

No one is denying the possibility of a tacit resignation. On the other hand, it is ordinarily required that some authoritative intervention is necessary, especially with regard to a question of the Pope. Now a tacit resignation is essentially a self-evident fact, as the examples from canonists show. Other cases are not which is how the Holy Office has historically dealt with formal heretics. A collection of materially heretical statements doesn't amount to a demonstration of the existence of a tacit resignation, far from it. I think it is your position that renders the commentary of theologians moot at best and unintelligible at worst. If it were simply a matter of tacit resignation why all the spilled ink from the very sources you cite regarding procedural matters?

Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:31 am

Caminus

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pmPosts: 53

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

For the sake of completeness I will answer this assertion of Da Silveira:

Quote:

Some authors, above all ancient ones, do not consider that, for the sake of an eminent interest of souls or of the Church, jurisdiction can be “sustained” in the heretic. For this reason, even Saint Robert Bellarmine, as we pointed out in note 15 of page 46, seems to deny the possibility of the permanence of jurisdiction in a manifest heretic - a permanence, that, which the practice of the Church in the last centuries, above all in relation to heretic Bishops not yet deposed, obliges one to admit as legitimate.

His theory - and it is, without possibility of dispute, his own - is mistaken. He notices that the Church is reluctant to act immediately against heretical bishops and that she nevertheless treats their jurisdiction as intact during that period after their disappearance into heresy but before their authoritative deposition from office. Da Silveria ascribes this to his novel notion, the "sustaining" of jurisdiction in one who radically, as he puts it, cannot possess habitual jurisdiction. This inference is entirely unnecessary and conflicts with the explicit teaching of the Fathers, and of course, following them, Bellarmine. So what is the explanation? An obvious answer is that there always exists in such cases common error, so that the acts of such a putative heretic are valid by virtue of Canon 209 until and unless that common error is cleared away, which is precisely what an authoritative declaration does. This solution fits all of the best authorities and conflicts with no canonical or doctrinal truth. It is elegant and sufficient. With it any difficulties evaporate.

Garrigou Lagrange says essentially the same thing with regard to a "moral head" while the fact remains private, at least according to public ecclesiastical law.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

Firstly, St. Paul’s instruction is to avoid the heretic who has been warned once or twice. I agree with that teaching. In fact, I would go even further by saying that Pope Francis, who is, by all appearances, a heretic, should absolutely be avoided, even though I have not personally warned him. I think the circumstances of our present day (mass media and instant communications) justify this position. I believe the amount of information available eliminates the absolute necessity of one or two warnings, which in normal times would be necessary to form the requisite judgment to justify the actions.

St. Robert Bellarmine does not know of such an attitude to the pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:

[I]n the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

To the Doctor of the Church's rhetorical questions, you reply as you have done above. This argument should not convince anybody.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:19 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Caminus wrote:

Garrigou Lagrange says essentially the same thing with regard to a "moral head" while the fact remains private, at least according to public ecclesiastical law.

Please quote him. I think his position differs fundamentally with that of Da Silveira. If I recall, his position is based upon confusion over the fact that only public heresy strips one of membership in the Church (a confusion started by Cardinal Franzelin, according to Fenton). For this reason Garrigou doesn't admit that the condition of public heresy is radically incompatible with the possession of habitual jurisdiction. Da Silveira, on the other hand, does admit this (with Bellarmine). But please quote Garrigou and we'll consider his words.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:22 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Caminus wrote:

No one is denying the possibility of a tacit resignation. On the other hand, it is ordinarily required that some authoritative intervention is necessary, especially with regard to a question of the Pope. Now a tacit resignation is essentially a self-evident fact, as the examples from canonists show. Other cases are not which is how the Holy Office has historically dealt with formal heretics. A collection of materially heretical statements doesn't amount to a demonstration of the existence of a tacit resignation, far from it. I think it is your position that renders the commentary of theologians moot at best and unintelligible at worst. If it were simply a matter of tacit resignation why all the spilled ink from the very sources you cite regarding procedural matters?

No, I think you misunderstand me. I agree with everything you have written. The only possible objection to sedevacantism in our day is the view that these men, clever and subtle as they have been in many ways, do not meet the canonical definition of heretic, and that therefore the safer position is to refrain from forming a final judgement. I have no problem with that view, it's entirely within the bounds of Christian doctrine. The problem I have is with all the absolute rubbish that is presented against the doctrine of the Fathers and St. Robert Bellarmine, and with them so many scholastic theologians and canonists, by ignorant and irresponsible persons who cannot rest in a minimalist and humble position.

That position was Archbishop Lefebvre's. He held to the theology of Bellarmine, and only witheld from a final judgement on the ground that he was not quite sure about the factual question of John Paul II's status as a Catholic. It's also my experience that most SSPX priests hold this same general view. It is only a few exceptional men amongst them who have sought to further delve into the sedevacantist question, possibly because they were tempted by it themselves, and have produced the mournful series of articles that have appeared over the years in SSPX publications to the detriment of sound theology and the confusion of the clergy and the faithful. It really is time it stopped, since now we have a complete outrage posing as pope, a man that nobody respects at all, and certainly nobody trusts.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:28 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Caminus wrote:

No one is denying the possibility of a tacit resignation.

I presume you mean "No one who is commenting on this topic on this forum..." It seems to me that most people deny any "tacit resignation" because most people (with whom I come into contact anyway) tell me that there is no "resignation" unless first formally judged by the Church and a declaration of heresy declared, which would hardly be tacit since the very word means, "expressed or understood without being said directly".

It seems that this is what Mr. Siscoe is saying.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:42 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

RJS wrote:

Firstly, St. Paul’s instruction is to avoid the heretic who has been warned once or twice. I agree with that teaching. In fact, I would go even further by saying that Pope Francis, who is, by all appearances, a heretic, should absolutely be avoided, even though I have not personally warned him. I think the circumstances of our present day (mass media and instant communications) justify this position. I believe the amount of information available eliminates the absolute necessity of one or two warnings, which in normal times would be necessary to form the requisite judgment to justify the actions.

St. Robert Bellarmine is incredulous at your astonishing position in relation to the pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:

[ I]n the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

To the Doctor of the Church's rhetorical questions, you reply as you have done above. As I've said before, with these kinds of arguments, you won't convince anybody, even if it aids your own resistance to a position which evidently fascinates and attracts you.

It is really a matter of common sense that a person can avoid one who is deemed to be a danger. This is true regardless of the office the person holds, and regardless of whether the danger is physical or spiritual. To quote Guéranger: "When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself." If Bellarmine were addressing a scenario similar to our circumstances, I have no doubt that he would agree that not only can these dangerous Popes be avoided, but one would even be justified in openly resisting them (which is more than simply avoiding them). But you go further than that by actually deposing them, or, what amounts to the same thing, judging them to be deposed (or never legitimately elected). It is one thing for an individual to avoid a man they consider to be a danger, and another for an inferior to depose a superior. Read what Bellarmine had to say about this and ask yourself whose position he is more in agreement with.

Quote:

“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

If it is licit to resist a Pope who attacks the body or soul, it is also licit to avoid the one who attacks the body or soul. Once again, this is common sense, something that is, unfortunately, not in high supply today.

But I’m still waiting for you to provide an authoritative quote in support of your position: one saying an individual layman has the authority to publicly declare that a man elected by the college of Cardinal as Pope, and recognized by virtually the entire world (Catholic or not), as Pope, is not a true Pope. You have yet to provide a single authoritative quote to justify the actions you have taken.

On the contrary, I have provided a quote explicitly stating that a judgment of guilt must be rendered for a heretical Pope to be removed – even if someone holds to the opinion of Bellarmine who taught that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office. In other words, the teaching of Bellarmine does not exclude the necessity of a judgment by the Church (at least for a Pope who remains visibly in office and was still recognized as Pope by virtually all); rather the judgment of guilt is necessary to confirm that the Pope has indeed fallen into heresy and thereby lost his office.

Your response to that quote from a real canon lawyer was what I expected. You attempted to undermine the authority of the book by referring to it as “an obscure manual of canon law”. Obscure? Have you seen the number of Cardinals and Bishops who endorsed it? Look at the first several pages of the book. Yet, in order to hold to your position, your only defense was to attempt to undermine the book, even though the manual was reviewed and approved by two Cardinal in Rome, who were real canon lawyers, not laymen in the pew who have read just enough to be dangerous.

You claim to respect Church approved theologians and canonists, yet when they disagree with your position, you seek to undermine them. You did the same thing with De Salveira. You cited him as an authority in support of your position, and then immediately turned on him when I point out that he disagrees with your application of his teaching. You pick and chose what you think supports your position and ignore or attack any authority who disagrees with you. I noticed the same thing when we argued years ago over whether or not Vatican II should have been infallible but virtue of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. At the time, I noticed that you tried your best to ignore the quotes I cited against your position. You really need to humble yourself and realize that you have much to learn.

Last edited by RJS on Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:00 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Dear RJS,

I had edited that post to make it gentler, so I'm sorry about the harshness of the version you answered. Our efforts obviously crossed.

You have now changed the subject. We are not discussing the lawfulness of resistance to unlawful commands. We agree on that subject (I hope!). Please go back and re-read what you wrote, and my answer.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:25 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

But I’m still waiting for you to provide an authoritative quote in support of your position: one saying an individual layman has the authority to publicly declare that a man elected by the college of Cardinal as Pope, and recognized by virtually the entire world (Catholic or not), as Pope, is not a true Pope. You have yet to provide a single authoritative quote to justify the actions you have taken.

I don't know why it bothers you what I do. Actually, not only have I given authorities, I have cited a concrete historical example, Eusebius, and noted that the pope confirmed his judgement. So that's doctrine and praxis.

RJS wrote:

On the contrary, I have provided a quote explicitly stating that a judgment of guilt must be rendered for a heretical Pope to be removed – even if someone holds to the opinion of Bellarmine who taught that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office.

A sentence, from a manualist. If this were the doctrine of the Church you'd be able to find more substantial argument than that. Anybody re-reading this thread will note how often you propose an argument, it is demolished, and you switch to another. Why is that? Because you don't take your own arguments seriously.

RJS wrote:

Your response to that quote from a real canon lawyer was what I expected. You attempted to undermine the authority of the book by referring to it as “an obscure manual of canon law”. Obscure? Have you seen the number of Cardinals and Bishops who endorsed it?

A great many obscure works have a list as long as your arm of such approbations. All that they mean is that the book's orthodox and was considered to fill a need of the time. Shall I present a few college-level/seminary Catholic history texts from the nineteenth century with similar lists in the front? Would that suddenly give those long-forgotten works of, considered in the long view, mediocre writers, some quasi-infallible status?

Did you actually read what the cardinal wrote in the beginning of Smith's book? If so, what did you make of the comment that despite the fact that it contains errors, he considers it a work of merit? He even goes on, after answering some ill-directed criticisms of Dr. Smith's work, to list two specific serious errors and recommend that they be corrected in a future edition. So much for the names of cardinals in the front of the book. The other approbations contain the usual qualified praise - one says that he considers it the best elementary (his italics) treatise he has seen, and others that it fills a great need, etc. I nearly wrote, "you know the kind of thing" then realised that, actually, you evidently don't!

As for undermining the authority of that book, you forget the course of the argument. I'm not undermining its authority, I'm reducing it to its proper place, after you attempted ridiculously to puff it. Don't puff and I won’t deflate. Promise.

RJS wrote:

Yet, in order to hold to your position, your only defense was to attempt to undermine the book, even though the manual was reviewed and approved by two Cardinal in Rome, who were real canon lawyers, not laymen in the pew who have read just enough to be dangerous.

An autobiographical comment if ever there was one. You don't even give a page number from Smith, so it's obvious you borrowed the quote from elsewhere (it's page 240, vol I in the ninth edition). If Smith satisfies you, good for you. But don't expect that a single sentence from somebody no serious author ever quotes is going to do anything for anybody else. It's just silly. This is a pre-Code canonist whose view has been contradicted by the Code (c. 188). His value was that he wrote for the USA, which nobody had previously done. That's actually why all those approbations are there. The procedure was to send copies out for free to loads of bishops and ask for approbations. It's obvious from some of them that they haven't even read the book. One says explicitly that he hasn't. Another writes only that "This beautiful volume comes in proper time." That's the entire text. Another is, "I am very much pleased with it." The idea was to kick-start sales, for something previously unknown. You seem to think it the next best thing to a declaration that Smith is a Doctor of the Church.

Further, as it stands, Smith flatly contradicts Bellarmine, who points out that nobody can judge a pope. Smith devoted no time to the question - in fact, he credits this particular view to another author, Craisson, a more substantial writer but also not one widely quoted, I think. Smith hasn't given his reasoning, because he has none - he's repeating in summary form another man's opinion. Read Bellarmine if you want to see what reasoning on these kinds of things looks like. Smith gives no reasons because he's writing an introductory text summarising what he thinks are the best opinions of others. And he messes it up. He says (summarising, remember) that "the Church" must judge a pope guilty of heresy, then names "the Church" as consisting of either the College of Cardinals or an imperfect general council. Neither is "the Church" and his use of that term in the context is a clear error - an error he probably wouldn't have made if he was thinking the matter through himself, instead of rapidly providing a precis of another man's view.

RJS wrote:

You claim to respect Church approved theologians and canonists, but in reality that just is part of your shell game. You only claim to respect them since doing so appears to bolster your positions. Yet when they disagree with your position, you seek to undermine them. You did the same thing with De Salveira. You cited him as an authority in support of your position, and then immediately turned on him when I point out that he disagrees with your application of his teaching.

You forget, once again, the course of the argument. I quoted da Silveira, because he gives the standard doctrine and provides quotes from heavyweights proving it, such as de Lugo. I didn't cite him as an authority, that is what you did immediately afterwards. That is when I pointed out that he's a layman, not to undermine him but rather to hoist you on your own anti-layman (what are you?) petard. I also disagreed with him, but only and precisely when he departed from the authorities and went off on his own. Deal with the arguments please, instead of this nonsense ad hominem, which you can't even get right.

Dear RJS, I should have also pointed out that one excellent authority is Cum ex apostolatus which famously very clearly states that even laymen can do what every sedevacantist does. Have a look, it's an interesting document and highly relevant to the topic in which you are interesting yourself.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:10 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Dear RJS,

I had edited that post to make it gentler, so I'm sorry about the harshness of the version you answered. Our efforts obviously crossed.

I just slightly edited my reply as well to soften it a bit. And thanks for the link to the books. I am downloading them now. I look forward to seeing what they have to say on this point, since Smith referenced them as a source for his position.

And regarding your statement that I didn't provide the page number for the quote from Smith, and therefore, "it's obvious you borrowed the quote from elsewhere (it's page 240, vol I in the ninth edition)." I didn't borrow the quote from somewhere else. I got it right out of the book, and it didn't come from page 240, but from page 210 (fourth edition). The fact that I mentioned the two footnotes within the quote from Smith should have alerted you to the fact that I copied it directly from the book.

But I understand very clearly why you made that comment. You are always trying to find a way to present yourself in a superior position, and one of your common tactic is by attempting to lower the position of your opponent, which you usually do through derogatory statements. It is a shame that you feel the need to use such passive aggressive tactics in order to keep the façade you have erected going. But I find it hard to imagine that anyone other than yourself is impressed. And just so you know, if I sometimes respond aggressively toward you, that's the reason. I would much rather keep things on a higher and more civil level, but it is difficult to do so when you resort to your typical and transparent tactics.

Now I need to edit this post to make it softer

Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:25 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Cristian Jacobo has provided a quick translation of the Latin of Craisson. NB, Smith misrepresents it.

"I answer along with R. de M.: "There are two opinions, Azor says…, one affirms he is deprived ipso iure of the Pontificate, but afterwards a sentence by the Church must declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy; this opinion is held by Paludanus, etc… The heretic is outside the Church and therefore he is not member of the Church; how can someone be the head of the Church if he is not a member?... the same may be deduced of chap Quod autem, etc.

The second opinion denies generally that the Pope loses his pontificates once he became heretic… but rather he must be removed, which is the opinion of Cajetan, etc… The other bishops are not regarded as deprived ipso iure of their office as soon as they are heretics. Until… at least their crime is declared… what they do is valid… A general Council must remove the Pope if he falls in heresy. See below 6123".

So you see that the second opinion requires a declaration, whereas the first only says what ought to happen after a pope falls out of the Church by heresy and therefore automatically loses his office. Siscoe's interpretation of Smith is utterly false (I say that on the reasonable assumption that Smith understood this very plain text from Craisson and merely messed up his expression of it).

The first opinion given by Craisson, which is that of Azor (a Jesuit moralist, contemporary with Bellarmine) and of course of Bellarmine also, is that a heretic pope loses his office automatically by (public) heresy. The declaration mentioned occurs only afterwards, obviously, and is specifically characterised as "declaratory" I suggest to distinguish it from a condemnatory sentence. A declaratory sentence only gives additional public legal force to something which has already occurred. A condemnatory sentence or judgement brings about what it declares. Obviously no condemnatory judgement can be made of the pope, given he has no human superior, although in the hypothesis that a pope did fall into heresy and lose his office, a condemnatory sentence would actually be lawful (although perhaps unwise given the opportunity for misunderstanding and consequent heresy) since the subject would not be pope but in fact less than any Christian.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:01 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

But I understand very clearly why you made that comment. You are always trying to find a way to present yourself in a superior position, and one of your common tactic is by attempting to lower the position of your opponent, which you usually do through derogatory statements. It is a shame that you feel the need to use such passive aggressive tactics in order to keep the façade you have erected going. But I find it hard to imagine that anyone other than yourself is impressed. And just so you know, if I sometimes respond aggressively toward you, that's the reason. I would much rather keep things on a higher and more civil level, but it is difficult to do so when you resort to your typical and transparent tactics.

Now I need to edit this post to make it softer

Thanks for the sermon. No doubt there's truth in it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:05 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo has provided a quick translation of the Latin of Craisson. NB, Smith misrepresents it.

"I answer along with R. de M.: "There are two opinions, Azor says…, one affirms he is deprived ipso iure of the Pontificate, but afterwards a sentence by the Church must declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy; this opinion is held by Paludanus, etc… The heretic is outside the Church and therefore he is not member of the Church; how can someone be the head of the Church if he is not a member?... the same may be deduced of chap Quod autem, etc.

The second opinion denies generally that the Pope loses his pontificates once he became heretic… but rather he must be removed, which is the opinion of Cajetan, etc… The other bishops are not regarded as deprived ipso iure of their office as soon as they are heretics. Until… at least their crime is declared… what they do is valid… A general Council must remove the Pope if he falls in heresy. See below 6123".

So you see that the second opinion requires a declaration, whereas the first only says what ought to happen after a pope falls out of the Church by heresy and therefore automatically loses his office. Siscoe's interpretation of Smith is utterly false (I say that on the reasonable assumption that Smith understood this very plain text from Craisson and merely messed up his expression of it).

Many thanks to Cristian for translating this. I wonder if he can also translate the passage from Phillips (which I believe is in German, not Latin). Also, there are a lot of ellipses in the quotation. If we could get a more complete translation and a page number that would also be great.

But John, notice the citation did not say what you claimed it said. It did not say what ought to happen, but what must happen. According to the first opinion (those who maintain that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office,) "a sentence by the Church (not individuals in the pew) MUST declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy.” Notice that the Church must make this declaration. And for this to happen, obviously a judgment that the man is guilty of the crime of heresy would have to be made (even if this would not cause, but only confirm that he lost his office), and this judgment is not the domain of private opinion. So regardless of which opinion one holds, it still requires a judgment of guilt, just like Canon Smith said.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:03 pm

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Not wanting to break into the middle of this rather heated exchange as the question of if there needs to be an declaratory sentence to recognize that a man has deposed himself from the See of Peter, I would like to draw RJS's attention back to St Robert Bellarmine's quote: "Now a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?" Now you responded to this paradox St. Robert presents by stating it is common sense to avoid an authority who is presenting a physical or spiritual danger. If the laity are ignoring their authority, does this authority really possess any power. In any case you supported your position by citing Gueranger: "When the Shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself."

I wish to point out the fact if a shepherd were to become a wolf, this would be a substantial change and the wolf would no longer be regarded as the shepherd. And as the wolf could no longer be viewed as the shepherd, a pope who substantially changes and becomes a non-Catholic heretic would no remain the pope. Just as being a shepherd and a wolf is incompatible, so is being a heretic and pope. This is common sense and is why St. Robert rightly states his position can be proven "with arguments from authority and from reason."

The other fundamental problem with yours and Caminus's position is if we are to avoid our head, Christ’s vicar on earth, the supreme authority in the Church, please explain how a true Catholic would go about doing this without becoming schismatic and please cite your authorities. To resist a Pontiff who gives a moral evil command, St. Robert Bellarmine has already addressed, and I am not discussing a Pope who is materially harming the Church. I am asking quite specifically on a Pope who is destroying the Church substantially (i.e. using his teaching authority to destroy faith or morals) [Something I understand to be impossible but I am willing to hear your arguments in favor of this].

Let me give an example to help illustrate my point. Tomorrow “Pope” Francis will canonize John Paul II and John XXIII. It is common teaching of theologians that Canonization is an infallible act and yet the layperson’s catholicity tells them there is no way these two men are saints.

“Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., CHAPTER III: The Properties of the Church, IV. The Object of InfallibilityAssertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today. (19)

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration.”

Padre Pio has also been declared a saint by this Novus Ordo, your Catholic authority. What now? Who is a saint, who is not, and for whom is it to decide?

If I or my traditional priest is determining who is a saint and who is not, who is the Holy Ghost protecting, the pope or me? Who is the infallible authority in the Church? Can I just ignore the canonizations of John Paul II and John XXIII? No, because canonization is not permission to venerate someone as beautification is but a declaration of obligation to do such.

You have the same problem with the 1983 Code of Canon law. They are infallibly promulgated by John Paul II yet they explicitly contradict the prior Church’s teaching. Who determined what laws to keep and which to throw away?

Ah, I think you’ve seen the problem.

My understanding of your argument is we cannot determine the fact of if a man is the Roman Pontiff, but we can determine what in the doctrine he teaches is infallible and what is erroneous. In short we cannot determine facts judged by exterior criteria, but we can determine doctrine infallibly which requires the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:27 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

Many thanks to Cristian for translating this. I wonder if he can also translate the passage from Phillips (which I believe is in German, not Latin).

You are welcome! Unfortunatelly no, I can´t read German, but if you need some help with some Latin, Spanish or French text just let me know!

Sorry to jump in here! I´ve not read all the posts so far but I just want to call your attention on something about Cajetan´s position.

His argument is that an heretical Bishop remains such (and therefore that same principle applies to the Pope), because he speaks of an internal heretic. So he has completely misunderstood the point at issue here and that´s why his opinion shouldn´t be taken into consideration.

Truly, from both opinions (Papa deponendus-Papa depositus), the last one seems to retain the only way in which the most certain principles of the ecclesiastical constitution are kept unhurt. And he who reads the reasons gathered by Cayetan in order to convince of the first opinion, will easily see, how in vain he tries to show how these three things can exist at the same time, namely:

1) That the Pope, once he becomes heretic is not deposed from the pontificate, either by divine or human law.

2) That the Pope, while remaining Pope, has no superior upon earth.

3) That if the Pope diverts from the faith, must be, nevertheless, deposed by the Church.

Sed contra est that, if in the case of heresy the Pope that remains Pope may be deposed by the Church, necessarily would follow one of these two things: that deposition doesn’t mean superiority of the one who deposes with regard to the one who is deposed, or that the Pope, remaining Pope, has actually, at least in some cases, superior upon earth. Besides, once you open the door for deposition, there is no reason, either by its nature, or by positive law, by which you must restrict the deposition of the Pope to the sole case of heresy. In this way are destroyed all the principles by mean of which are shown its repugnance and there is but a voluntary rule to which is united an arbitrary exception.

Besides, the reasons by which Cayetan rejects the opinion of his adversaries hardly have any value. “You can see, he says, that the heretical Pope is not ipso facto deprived (of the pontificate) neither by divine nor human law, by this reason: if the other Bishops are heretics are not deprived ipso facto, either by divine law or by human law. Therefore, neither the Pope. Conclusion follows since the Pope is not in a worst condition that the rest of the Bishops. What I just said is proved in this way: the Bishop who believes against faith, only by means of an internal act is truly, properly and perfectly heretical and is not deprived ipso facto. There are two statements in this affirmation. The first is that by an internal act you are perfectly heretical and this is manifest per se… the second, on the other hand, is proved… since such heretic is not excommunicated; the Church cannot excommunicate what she cannot judge. Ergo much less he is deprived of the power of jurisdiction delegated by man, etc” (Tract. 1 de auct. Papae et Concilii, chapter 19).

Here you can see that the sole reason given by Cayetan resides in the fact that in order to have heresy it is enough the interior act, and that jurisdiction is never lost by reason of the interior heresy. The argument, therefore, is the following: the Bishop doesn’t lose his power by mean of an interior and occult per se heresy; therefore, the heretical Bishop is never deprived ipso facto of his Episcopal jurisdiction; ergo, neither is the Pope deprived, since he is not in a worst condition.

Nevertheless we must take into account that we are not dealing here with heresy precisely as a sin against the virtue of faith in the internal forum of both God and conscience, but rather purely and simply of the heresy which has the power to cut the man from the visible body of the Church and which is directly opposed to the outward profession of the Catholic religion. This heresy is not interior and occult but only exterior and manifest, as we widely explained in Question 7, Thesis 11, paragraph 2. In fact, the bound by which he belonged to the visible structure of the ecclesiastical society is broken not by secretly disbelieving, but rather by openly professing not to believe those things proposed to the faithful in order to be believed with Catholic faith, and in this way he loses immediately his membership along with all the titles it necessarily presupposes. Therefore, given the hypothesis of the Pope who would become manifest heretical, we must conclude, without doubt, that he would lose the pontifical power ipso facto, since, once he is unfaithful, he would put himself, by his own will, outside the body if the Church, as rightly say the authors that wrongly, it seems, contradicts Cayetan.

But John, notice the citation did not say what you claimed it said. It did not say what ought to happen, but what must happen.

Dear RJS,

This is a standard summary of the two main opinions and does nothing for your case, I'm sorry. But I will ask a couple of people to review the Latin to see if, despite my failure to detect it, there's anything in the construction to warrant some additional nuance as you hope.

The reality is there are two conflicting views. One says that a heretic ipso facto falls from his dignity, and the other that the Church must intervene. The first opinion differs from the second in two key ways. First, it points out that the Fathers are unanimous in holding that nobody outside the Church can maintain habitual jurisdiction. Second, that any intervention by the Church would place the Church above the pope, which is heretical. What happens afterwards (Roquette de Malviès's own word) is non-essential, by definition. It cannot affect the question at issue, that is, whether such a man is pope. He isn't. All that it can affect is what is done about it. Now other theologians say that a declaration in such a case is not to be excluded because it would aid good order, prevent disputes, etc. And frankly, this is obvious. There appears to be no reason to think that R. de M. is saying anything else.

Have you had a look at Cum ex apostolatus yet? You do realise it explicitly mentions laymen as amongst those who can reject and treat as a warlock, heathen, publican, etc. an "heretical pope" don't you? You are flogging a dead horse.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:18 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

RJS wrote:

Many thanks to Cristian for translating this. I wonder if he can also translate the passage from Phillips (which I believe is in German, not Latin).

You are welcome! Unfortunatelly no, I can´t read German, but if you need some help with some Latin, Spanish or French text just let me know!

Thanks again, Cristian. Great passage from Billot. Interesting that Garrigou, centuries later, followed this same way of arguing of Cajetan - that is, failing to appreciate the different effects of internal and external heresy.

If you have some spare time, perhaps you could have a look at the relevant section of R. de M. (I've just posted the link) without Caisson's ellipses and see if it makes any difference to the interpretation.

Again, thank you!

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:21 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

JS Daly's translation of Craisson:

Quote:

Question 6. Whether a Pope who falls into heresy ipso iure forfeits the Pontificate. I answer, with R. de M. (in his Institutiones Juris Canonici, t.1, p.265): “There are two opinions, says, Azor. (…) one of which holds that he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity – this opinion is held by Paludanus, etc. (…) A heretic is outside the Church and therefore cannot be considered to be a member of the Church, so how can someone be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church? It seems that this can also be deduced from the chapters Quod autem; Acacius;and Audivimus, caus.24, q.1, etc.”.

“The second opinion denies in general that a pope who becomes a heretic is removed by divine law from his authority, holding rather that he is to be removed. This is the opinion of Cajetan, etc. (…). For the other bishops are not considered to be ipso jure deprived…as soon as they become heretics. Until (…) at least their crime has been declared, meanwhile (…) their acts are valid… The Pope would have to be deprived by a General Council if he were to fall into heresy.” See also what is said below (§6123)

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:43 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

RJS wrote:

Many thanks to Cristian for translating this. I wonder if he can also translate the passage from Phillips (which I believe is in German, not Latin).

You are welcome! Unfortunatelly no, I can´t read German, but if you need some help with some Latin, Spanish or French text just let me know!

Thanks again, Cristian. Great passage from Billot. Interesting that Garrigou, centuries later, followed this same way of arguing of Cajetan - that is, failing to appreciate the different effects of internal and external heresy.

Indeed. Dominicans in general were not good in the De Ecclesia treatise. I don´t know why.

Quote:

If you have some spare time, perhaps you could have a look at the relevant section of R. de M. (I've just posted the link) without Caisson's ellipses and see if it makes any difference to the interpretation.

I read it. While denying the possibility of an heretical Pope, for the sake of the argument Azor follows the second opinion and goes as far as to say that the Pope has indeed superior on earth in case of heresy, and that is a general Council.

So he simply denies point "2" of Billot.

Who is that Azor btw?? It is incredible to read such a garbage!

Nevertheless the book of R de M was written in 1853, so Azor wrote before Vat. I. That may explain at least in part his error.

Indeed. Dominicans in general were not good in the De Ecclesia treatise. I don´t know why.

My theory is that it's because St. Thomas doesn't address ecclesiology as such, and they are used to commenting on the Summa and the Disputed Questions etc. The Jesuits, still holding fast to the Angelic Doctor in all that he does say about the Church, performed a great deal of Positive Theology (i.e. they went afresh to the sources, Scripture and the Fathers) and developed this treatise themselves. That's what Bellarmine and various others did. The treatise on the Church really did not exist in a very developed form before the Reformation (although obviously the truths which constitute it did!). Fenton has an article on this somewhere, exploring the few medieval ecclesiologists and their doctrine.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Who is that Azor btw?? It is incredible to read such a garbage!

Oh you are funny! He was a celebrated contemporary of Bellarmine et al., known particularly for his moral theology, which later was praised in very high terms by the Doctor of Moral Theology, St. Alphonsus. It's an obvious example of a man outside of his speciality. Bellarmine is an obvious example of a man held in the highest esteem by the Church for his speciality, and therefore he's our master. It's not hard, is it, if one is not afraid of the outcome?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Nevertheless the book of R de M was written in 1853, so Azor wrote before Vat. I. That may explain at least in part his error.

Yes, hundreds of years before. I don't recall ever seeing Azor quoted in a dogmatic theology work, so perhaps the reference to him can be explained along the line that a canonist, such as Roquette de Malviès (and following him, Caisson, then of course Smith), will interest himself more in moralists than specialists in dogmatics. Obviously there are many overlaps and it would be a great weakness in a canonist not to be solid in dogmatic theology, but one can only spend one's time once, so in ordinary men strengths in one area inevitably translate to weaknesses in others. I think we see this clearly in even the famous theologians. Suarez was wonderful on Mariology, not so great in many other areas of theology. St. Alphonsus specialised in morals. Garrigou is wonderful on philosophy and the treatises on the divine nature, etc. (yet terrible on ecclesiology!). Bellarmine specialised in ecclesiology, apologetics, and related subjects. The difference between a Cajetan and a Bellarmine is not that one is great and the other not, but rather that in one there are no appreciable errors - hence the title of Doctor. So his greatness is of a different order, elevated beyond the realms of others. This is an additional reason why St. Thomas is the Common Doctor - he touches everything, even though he doesn't develop everything, and yet makes no errors. As John XXIII (the real one!) said, his doctrine is miraculous.

I predict that when theology is restored, the fact that Bellarmine is a Doctor will produce its proper effect, and the Dominicans will revise their ecclesiology to bring it into line with his. They already had to do so in part when Bellarmine's doctrine was defined at Vatican I. Mystici Corporis Christi would have done a great deal in this line if only Vatican II hadn't happened when it did.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:01 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Indeed. Dominicans in general were not good in the De Ecclesia treatise. I don´t know why.

My theory is that it's because St. Thomas doesn't address ecclesiology as such, and they are used to commenting on the Summa and the Disputed Questions etc. The Jesuits, still holding fast to the Angelic Doctor in all that he does say about the Church, performed a great deal of Positive Theology (i.e. they went afresh to the sources, Scripture and the Fathers) and developed this treatise themselves. That's what Bellarmine and various others did. The treatise on the Church really exist in a very developed form before the Reformation (although obviously the truths which constitute it did!). Fenton has an article on this somewhere, exploring the few medieval ecclesiologists and their doctrine.

Yes, it is a good explanation. I thought the same.

Is not incredible that the "synonymous" of Thomism in XX Cent. (G. Lagrange) while trying or thinking to follow St Thomas in one of the central thesis of ecclesiology (membership in the Church) in fact he is following no other than Suarez?

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Who is that Azor btw?? It is incredible to read such a garbage!

Oh you are funny! He was a celebrated contemporary of Bellarmine et al., known particularly for his moral theology, which later was praised in very high terms by the Doctor of Moral Theology, St. Alphonsus. It's an obvious example of a man outside of his speciality. Bellarmine is an obvious example of a man held in the highest esteem by the Church for his speciality, and therefore he's our master. It's not hard, is it, if one is not afraid of the outcome?

Ahhh great to know. As you say, you learn something every day!

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Nevertheless the book of R de M was written in 1853, so Azor wrote before Vat. I. That may explain at least in part his error.

Yes, hundreds of years before. I don't recall ever seeing Azor quoted in a dogmatic theology work

Neither me, and that was my surprise.

Quote:

so perhaps the reference to him can be explained along the line that a canonist, such as Roquette de Malviès (and following him, Caisson, then of course Smith), will interest himself more in moralists than specialists in dogmatics. Obviously there are many overlaps and it would be a great weakness in a canonist not to be solid in dogmatic theology, but one can only spend one's time once, so in ordinary men strengths in one area inevitably translate to weaknesses in others. I think we see this clearly in even the famous theologians. Suarez was wonderful on Mariology, not so great in many other areas of theology. St. Alphonsus specialised in morals. Garrigou is wonderful on philosophy and the treatises on the divine nature, etc. (yet terrible on ecclesiology!). Bellarmine specialised in ecclesiology, apologetics, and related subjects. The difference between a Cajetan and a Bellarmine is not that one is great and the other not, but rather that in one there are no appreciable errors - hence the title of Doctor. So his greatness is of a different order, elevated beyond the realms of others. This is an additional reason why St. Thomas is the Common Doctor - he touches everything, even though he doesn't develop everything, and yet makes no errors.

I agree!

Quote:

As John XXIII (the real one!) said, his doctrine is miraculous.

Perhaps you meant XXII?

Quote:

I predict that when theology is restored, the fact that Bellarmine is a Doctor will produce its proper effect, and the Dominicans will revise their ecclesiology to bring it into line with his. They already had to do so in part when Bellarmine's doctrine was defined at Vatican I. Mystici Corporis Christi would have done a great deal in this line if only Vatican II hadn't happened when it did.

Let´s at least hope that Bellarmine will produce its proper effect in traditionalism!

Question 6. Whether a Pope who falls into heresy ipso iure forfeits the Pontificate. I answer, with R. de M. (in his Institutiones Juris Canonici, t.1, p.265): “There are two opinions, says, Azor. (…) one of which holds that he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity – this opinion is held by Paludanus, etc. (…) A heretic is outside the Church and therefore cannot be considered to be a member of the Church, so how can someone be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church? It seems that this can also be deduced from the chapters Quod autem; Acacius;and Audivimus, caus.24, q.1, etc.”.

“The second opinion denies in general that a pope who becomes a heretic is removed by divine law from his authority, holding rather that he is to be removed. This is the opinion of Cajetan, etc. (…). For the other bishops are not considered to be ipso jure deprived…as soon as they become heretics. Until (…) at least their crime has been declared, meanwhile (…) their acts are valid… The Pope would have to be deprived by a General Council if he were to fall into heresy.” See also what is said below (§6123)

Thanks also to John Daly for his translation, but I notice that he left out the same parts as Cristian. Any chance we can see what's hidden behind the ellipses? Hopefully it is not being removed because it further supports my position. Or if someone will provide the page number I'll see if I can translate it myself.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:10 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Yes, it is a good explanation. I thought the same.

Well, then it must have been a good explanation!

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Is not incredible that the "synonymous" of Thomism in XX Cent. (G. Lagrange) while trying or thinking to follow St Thomas in one of the central thesis of ecclesiology (membership in the Church) in fact he is following no other than Suarez?

Let´s at least hope that Bellarmine will produce its proper effect in traditionalism!

No chance!

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:34 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

Thanks also to John Daly for his translation, but I notice that he left out the same parts as Cristian. Any chance we can see what's hidden behind the ellipses? Hopefully it is not being removed because it further supports my position. Or if someone will provide the page number I'll see if I can translate it myself.

You are rude.

No, nobody is leaving anything out. The ellipses are in Caisson. That's what we asked to have translated. Caisson is quoting R. de M, and I have provided the complete text of both authors, in links. If you can translate R. de M., go for it. And you're not going to find anything that supports your view, because it's not merely wrong, it's unheard of. There are five opinions held by theologians, yours is a sixth. Think about that.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:43 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Dear RJS, I should have also pointed out that one excellent authority is Cum ex apostolatus which famously very clearly states that even laymen can do what every sedevacantist does. Have a look, it's an interesting document and highly relevant to the topic in which you are interesting yourself.

John,

I disagree with your interpretation of Cum ex Apostolatus. It think it supports the R&R position and not your position. Here's the section that discusses laymen.

Quote:

In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

… that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:(i) the clergy, secular and religious;(ii) the laity; …shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to [u]avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs[/u] …

This confirms my position. I believe (as do you) that the current Pope and his recent predecessors deviated from the faith, which justifies my withdrawing from obedience and devotion to them, and also avoiding them.

Where we disagree is that you believe that your personal opinion not only justifies withdrawing from obedience and devotion to these men, but that you also have the authority to declare that they are not Popes. I say, with St. Thomas, that "since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community .... Wherefore even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority, so too it is unjust if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than the public authority.”

Since we will all have to answer for ourselves on judgment day, if individual Catholics consider the mountain objective evidence and conclude, by the light of their baptism and the knowledge they have gained by studying that faith, that the current occupant of the Chair of Peter has deviated from the faith, I believe they do have the authority to govern their life according to this private judgment, and therefore withdraw from obedience toward them. But they don't have the authority to make a public judgment, nor do they have the authority to "compel another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than public authority".

Again, it comes down to the distinction between a private judgment and a public judgment. I believe the individual can govern himself by his private judgment in this matter (which he will answer for), but he cannot make a public judgment since he has no authority to do so.

But I should also add that this is a delicate situation. We also have the teaching of the Fourth Council of Constantinople to consider. It teaches that individuals, be they laymen, priests or Bishops, cannot separate themselves from communion with their patriarch before a synod has passed judgment about the man. If they do so, they themselves are cut off from communion.

Quote:

The Fourth Council of Constantinople-Canon #10: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

“In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm

So, it is a delicate situation. I think laymen are justified in withdrawing from obedience and devotion to these Popes, but we cannot completely sever communion with them. This is the R&R position, which I believe is the most appropriate response to the present crisis.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:07 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

RJS wrote:

Thanks also to John Daly for his translation, but I notice that he left out the same parts as Cristian. Any chance we can see what's hidden behind the ellipses? Hopefully it is not being removed because it further supports my position. Or if someone will provide the page number I'll see if I can translate it myself.

You are rude.

No, nobody is leaving anything out. The ellipses are in Caisson. That's what we asked to have translated. Caisson is quoting R. de M, and I have provided the complete text of both authors, in links. If you can translate R. de M., go for it. And you're not going to find anything that supports your view, because it's not merely wrong, it's unheard of. There are five opinions held by theologians, yours is a sixth. Think about that.

How what that rude? I simply asked what was behind the ellipses. If the ellipses is in the original, that's all you had to say. But maybe you are getting angry since the portion that was quoted confirmed my position, and did not say what you claimed it said. To remind you, you claimed it said what "should" happen", when in reality it said was "must happen". And what was it that it said MUST happen? It was this: "a sentence by the Church MUST declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy". You say a sentence of the Church declaring that he fell from his office is NOT necessary, whereas the authority said it is.

Your the one that maintains the 6th position. And your novel 6th position is due to your complete and utter ignorance in not realizing that, even if one holds to the opinion of Bellarmine, "a sentence by the Church[/u] MUST declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy", just like Canon Smith also taught. Think about that.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:17 pm

James Schroepfer

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pmPosts: 100

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Quote:

. RJS: Again, it comes down to the distinction between a private judgment and a public judgment. I believe the individual can govern himself by his private judgment in this matter (which he will answer for), but he cannot make a public judgment since he has no authority to do so.

RJS, in all sincerity please explain how you are going to keep this private judgment without making a public judgment. Take the case of today "pope" Francis just proclaimed JP II a saint. Is he?

Now I am assuming you, given you take the R&R position, you do not consider him to be a saint. If you publicly declare him a saint you are denying your private judgment and lying against what you are morally certain to be true which would be scandalous. If you are publicly denying JP II is a saint without claiming Francis is not the pope, you are denying the infallibility of canonizations. If you claim to just doubt this canonization, unless you can demonstrate with moral certainty the canonization decree is somehow defective (a positive doubt), you are still doubting the infallibility of canonizations, a doctrine of the Church. The only way one can positively state JP II is not a saint without sinning or denying Catholic doctrine is to say the canonization was not infallible because it was not promulgated by a true pope. Otherwise you are demonstrating by your public judgment that Francis is the pope (JP II is a saint), or you are making a public judgment against the teaching of Holy Mother the Church (JP II is not a saint). It is by the exterior, our actions or words, our interior beliefs are demonstrated to others. People cannot read our hearts or know our minds.

The R&R position is then humanly impossible to maintain which is why I believe, while a sedevacantist cannot make a authoritative declaration, he is obligated, in order not to distort Catholic doctrine or give scandal by giving the appearance to distort public doctrine, to publicly hold his judgment. He cannot force other people based solely upon his authority to accept his position, I agree. But he can and must out of charity offer the facts from which he has reached with moral certainty his conclusion. What man if he sees his neighbor welcome a murder into his house and does not warn him of the danger has true charity? How much more in seeing the danger from one who can murder the soul and send the neighbor to everlasting hellfire?

Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:03 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Yes, it is a good explanation. I thought the same.

Well, then it must have been a good explanation!

Lol! I didn´t mean that , just tried to say that your explanation was more or less what I thought, but yours was more developed

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Is not incredible that the "synonymous" of Thomism in XX Cent. (G. Lagrange) while trying or thinking to follow St Thomas in one of the central thesis of ecclesiology (membership in the Church) in fact he is following no other than Suarez?

Well, yes, except that I think he was really following Cajetan...

Yes, I was wrong, I should have said "Garrigou agreed with Suarez, etc".

. RJS: Again, it comes down to the distinction between a private judgment and a public judgment. I believe the individual can govern himself by his private judgment in this matter (which he will answer for), but he cannot make a public judgment since he has no authority to do so.

RJS, in all sincerity please explain how you are going to keep this private judgment without making a public judgment. Take the case of today "pope" Francis just proclaimed JP II a saint. Is he?

Now I am assuming you, given you take the R&R position, you do not consider him to be a saint. If you publicly declare him a saint you are denying your private judgment and lying against what you are morally certain to be true which would be scandalous. If you are publicly denying JP II is a saint without claiming Francis is not the pope, you are denying the infallibility of canonizations. If you claim to just doubt this canonization, unless you can demonstrate with moral certainty the canonization decree is somehow defective (a positive doubt), you are still doubting the infallibility of canonizations, a doctrine of the Church. The only way one can positively state JP II is not a saint without sinning or denying Catholic doctrine is to say the canonization was not infallible because it was not promulgated by a true pope.

Hello James,

I read your earlier reply and was planning to respond, but I didn't want to get side tracked from the issue John and I are discussing.

Before responding to your points I wanted to say that, like John, I am a simple layman in the pew who is trying to navigate through this crisis. The current "canonization' is just one more difficulty in the present nightmare that needs to be dealt with.

The first point I would make is that canonizations are a secondary object of infallibility, which is sometimes referred to as an indirect object of infallibility. And, to quote Tanquerey, "there is a vast distinction between the direct object of infallibility and the indirect object" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol 1, Pg 145) While the Church has defined that it speaks infallibly when it defines primary objects of infallibility (which are truths revealed by God), it has never definitively taught that infallibility is engaged when it teaches secondary objects definitively (and since there are multiple categories contained within the secondary object of infallibility, each would need to be specifically addressed by the Church). But the point is, when we are speaking of the infallibility of canonizations, it is not de fide and therefore not, strictly speaking, a teaching of the Church. According to Van Noort the infallibility of canonization is only "the common opinion". (See Christ's Church, pg. 112)

As a side note, Suarez said that it was the "common opinion" in his day (which was also Bellarmine’s days, since they lived at the same time) that a Pope can only be deposed by a judgment and sentence of men. Suarez said: "in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today". This is one “common opinion” that Sedevacantists today reject.

Since the infallibility of canonizations has never been the subject of a definitive decision by the Church, it is within the realm of possibility that this "common opinion" is not correct. And if anyone has read John Daly's article on the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and, based on what he wrote, mistakenly believes canonizations are infallible by virtue of this organ of infallibility, I would be more than happy to debate them on this point and demonstrate why that is not the case.

Now, regarding the present "canonizations". Firstly, it must be said that we are living through extraordinary times, a point that Sedevacantists should readily admit. I say that because, according to just about all Sedevacantists, there has been no visible Pope for over 50 years. Instead, during this time, virtually the entire world has recognized a false Pope as the true Pope. Certainly an extraordinary situation if there ever was one! Secondly, most Sedevacantists will claim that there is no visible Bishop with jurisdiction. By "visible", I mean recognized publicly as the lawful Bishop of a diocese. Instead, they will claim that the Bishops recognized publicly are not the true Bishop, either because their ordination was invalid, or because they are public heretics. This is also an extraordinary situation. So my saying we are living through an extraordinary time is something that Sedevacantists should readily admit.

But, for the sake of argument, assuming that canonizations are infallible, in my mind there are several potential solutions for the difficulty. Firstly, Francis might not be the true Pope. I consider it within the realm of possibility that Ratzinger's resignation was invalid, as some are claiming today, which would mean that Ratzinger is still the Pope. If this is the case, the two canonizations were performed by an anti-Pope, which would mean they would not be protected by infallibility. I can't prove that Ratzinger is still the Pope, and I can't even say I think it is the case, but who knows, it might be the reality. And if it is the reality, I have no doubt that the Church will sort it out in the future and render the “canonizations” null. That is one possible solution for the difficulty.

Another possibility is that a future Pope will declare that the post-Concilar popes deviated from the Faith before or after their election, and, citing the authority of Cum ex Apostolatus officio, render the acts of their "Pontificates" null and void. Since I personally think these popes have deviated from the Faith, I hold this out as a possibility. If this did happen, the so-called canonizations would be rendered null. And if the Church went back to Paul VI as having deviated from the faith prior to 1965, it would also nullify Vatican II and the new Mass. What a clean solution to the present crisis! But, again, I don't know for sure if this will happen, but it is certainly not a scenario that a Sedevacantist should have a problem with, since they have already taken it upon themselves to render this decision.

Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:14 pm

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

Since the infallibility of canonizations has never been the subject of a definitive decision by the Church, it is within the realm of possibility that this "common opinion" is not correct. And if anyone has read John Daly's article on the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and, based on what he wrote, mistakenly believes canonizations are infallible by virtue of this organ of infallibility, I would be more than happy to debate them on this point and demonstrate why that is not the case.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that the infallibility of canonizations falls under the Extra Ordinary Magisterium.

Also, I believe it would do you a great deal of good, RJS, to read the following article from the American E.R. Vol. 118, page 265, "Bellarmine's Defence of Canonized Saints."

On page 271, Saint Robert expresses the Church's doctrine regarding the infallibility of canonizations:

"We hold that the Church does not err in the canonization of Her saints. Proofs for this are not difficult to find. If we were ever granted the privilege of doubting whether a canonized saint is really a saint or not, we should also have the liberty of doubting whether he has to be worshipped or not. But this, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, would be dogmatic suicide because then we should be allowed to call into question whether we have to do anything that the whole Church of Christ is doing.

" On the one hand, those among the canonized who were not in heaven would be deprived of all the suffrages of the living since we are forbidden to pray for the repose of the souls of canonized saints. "We do the martyrs an injustice when we pray for them," says St. Augustine. The same holds for all the canonized, according to the teaching of innocent III. On the other hand, people on earth would be deprived of the intercession of many of the Saints because as often as not they would be paying their respects to the souls in Hell instead of those in Heaven. What is worse, the Church would be calling down on herself the most dreadful maledictions every time she prayed that God might grant us His graces according to the glory He has bestowed on those whom we honor is Saints."

How wonderfully logical Saint Robert was, wasn't he?

Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:39 am

Brendan

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 amPosts: 76

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Recusant wrote:

"We hold that the Church does not err in the canonization of Her saints. Proofs for this are not difficult to find. If we were ever granted the privilege of doubting whether a canonized saint is really a saint or not, we should also have the liberty of doubting whether he has to be worshipped or not.

"Worshipped"? Not to nitpick, but he did mean "venerated" or "prayed to" here, right?

Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:51 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

There is no Pope named "John XXIII"! You just quoted "Pope John XXII"

I know I did, I meant that I had deliberately referred to John XXIII because that's whom I thought had said that about St. Thomas.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:07 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Brendan wrote:

Recusant wrote:

"We hold that the Church does not err in the canonization of Her saints. Proofs for this are not difficult to find. If we were ever granted the privilege of doubting whether a canonized saint is really a saint or not, we should also have the liberty of doubting whether he has to be worshipped or not.

"Worshipped"? Not to nitpick, but he did mean "venerated" or "prayed to" here, right?

Actually, the worship due to God alone is called latria. The worship of the saints is called dulia and the worship of the greatest saint, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is called hyperdulia. The definition of the word "worship" has been narrowed through the centuries to only mean latria.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:15 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS wrote:

How what that rude?

Objectively, that was about the rudest thing you could say here. You regard us as the kind of people who would hide bits of text which support the other side in a debate. In your opinion, we are about as low as can be. Understood. Apparently, comments from you which reveal that view of us should not be taken as rude. I don't understand why not, but who am I to question your rules of courtesy? Let me just say that where I come from, and I'll wager where a lot of other people on this forum come from also, the way that you address us is as rude as anything I've ever seen.

RJS wrote:

But maybe you are getting angry since the portion that was quoted confirmed my position, and did not say what you claimed it said.

So you repeat and now add to your incredible rudeness. You are very rude. What you wrote was rude. Don't go psycho-analysing others to find out what this observation must really mean, it means simply that you wrote very impolite things. Since you evidently cannot grasp why what you wrote (and continue to write) is rude, then I suggest that you print it off and show it to your priest, or your mum.

No, I'm not angry about any text that appears here. You began this thread with a text that looked like it might support your strange view, and it has now been shown to be entirely useless for you. I do not know why I'd be angry about that.

RJS wrote:

To remind you, you claimed it said what "should" happen", when in reality it said was "must happen". And what was it that it said MUST happen? It was this: "a sentence by the Church MUST declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy". You say a sentence of the Church declaring that he fell from his office is NOT necessary, whereas the authority said it is.

There's no detectible difference between must, should, and ought, in that sentence. Ask somebody else that you trust. This debate needs to move to Fisheaters or something. It's embarrassing having it here.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:25 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

RJS,

I'm not going to explain why what you wrote is nonsense. It just is. Take it to Fisheaters or somewhere where you can have thirty-page debates with others who don't take sacred doctrine seriously, but here what you wrote will get deleted.

Thanks.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:48 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Recusant wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that the infallibility of canonizations falls under the Extra Ordinary Magisterium.

No, it doesn't. The infallibility of canonisations is theologically certain, but not directly guaranteed to be certain by the authority of the Church.

So it's a sin to deny the infallibility of canonisations, and that sin is contrary to the virtue of faith, but it isn't heresy.

Pope Benedict XIV, "If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.” (Translated by John Daly).

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:50 am

Mithrandylan

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pmPosts: 48

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Van Noort says that the infallibility of canonizations is the common opinion of today. He says many other objects of infallibility are certain, so I know it's not a confusion in terms. How would you account for the difference of opinion between what Benedict XIV wrote and Van Noort viewing the infallibility of canonizations as common rather than certain?

Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:00 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that some later theologians have questioned it and not been censured, so that would explain Van Noort's theological note.

I simply asked what was behind the ellipses. If the ellipses is in the original, that's all you had to say.

RJS, just in case you have any sense of justice at all, here is what happened here.

Siscoe quoted Sebastian Smith (with no page number).

I located the relevant text in Smith, and decided that we should take a look at his footnotes to see if his sources could shed light on what he means. Smith's main source is Craisson, a French canonist. I located Craisson's book at archive.org and posted a link here. Craisson, in fact, merely quotes excerpts from Roquette de Malviès, so that Craisson's text has several ellipses in it. I asked Cristian and JS Daly to translate the text from Craisson. They both, very generously, did so immediately, and I posted both translations here. In addition, I then found the volume of Eugène Roquette de Malviès, which is the text from which Craisson excerpted his quotes, and posted the link here. So the entire Latin original, without Craisson's ellipses, was available to all.

You, RJS, commented, rather bizarrely, on the translation of Craisson, that "there are a lot of ellipses in the quotation. If we could get a more complete translation and a page number that would also be great." And then later, "Thanks also to John Daly for his translation, but I notice that he left out the same parts as Cristian. Any chance we can see what's hidden behind the ellipses? Hopefully it is not being removed because it further supports my position."

This is exceedingly strange for several reasons.

1. There can be no more "complete" translation of Craisson's text, for the simple reason that the entire thing was already translated, by two different men, and both translations published here.2. The ellipses are in Craisson's original text.3. Craisson's original text has been linked to from here, and you, RJS commented that you have downloaded it (but apparently not bothered actually to look at it!).4. The link I provided was to the relevant page (p. 350), so you, RJS asking for a page number is even more strange.

So you are suspicious that Cristian, JS Daly, and I have conspired to selectively edit, and translate twice, a text for which we have published a link to the unedited original!

So, we followed the thread of sources and found the original texts. We posted links to the actual pages in those sources where the relevant material is found. We translated the immediate source of Smith's opinion, Craisson. Your reaction? To misunderstand all of this, apparently, and then to abuse us as dishonest men who might just be hiding the proof that you need for your personal theory.

You know, on the face of it you are entirely beyond human help.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:20 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

Recusant wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that the infallibility of canonizations falls under the Extra Ordinary Magisterium.

No, it doesn't. The infallibility of canonisations is theologically certain, but not directly guaranteed to be certain by the authority of the Church.

So it's a sin to deny the infallibility of canonisations, and that sin is contrary to the virtue of faith, but it isn't heresy.

Sorry John for not being clearer. I wasn't suggesting that it was de fide, but that it is infallibily safe and following St. Robert, the Church can't err in this regard. Now, what I am slightly unsure of, is the notion that canonizations are acts of the Extra Ordinary Magisterium and not the Ordinary. Are all acts of the EOM de fide and thus to deny them would be heresy or can they be covered by infallibility and have a lesser censure for it's denial?

Sorry for derailing the thread, please move my post if you wish.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:25 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

Recusant wrote:

John Lane wrote:

Recusant wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that the infallibility of canonizations falls under the Extra Ordinary Magisterium.

No, it doesn't. The infallibility of canonisations is theologically certain, but not directly guaranteed to be certain by the authority of the Church.

So it's a sin to deny the infallibility of canonisations, and that sin is contrary to the virtue of faith, but it isn't heresy.

Sorry John for not being clearer. I wasn't suggesting that it was de fide, but that it is infallibily safe and following St. Robert, the Church can't err in this regard. Now, what I am slightly unsure of, is the notion that canonizations are acts of the Extra Ordinary Magisterium and not the Ordinary. Are all acts of the EOM de fide and thus to deny them would be heresy or can they be covered by infallibility and have a lesser censure for it's denial?

Sorry for derailing the thread, please move my post if you wish.

Don't worry about derailing this thread. I'm pretty disgusted with what's happened here, as you can probably tell, so any distraction is welcome.

I think that if canonisations are infallible, as they are, there can be no doubt that they are acts of the extraordinary magisterium. The question you ask next is tied up with the question of ecclesiastical faith. That is, whether the Church can teach infallibly anything not really revealed. The question is not, I must emphasise, whether she is infallible in condemning errors less than heresies, for example. She is certainly infallible in those acts. The question is how to categorise that kind of infallible act. Marin-Sola seems to be the master on this question, according to Fenton, and it's a very interesting and I think instructive controversy.

You'll note that Benedict XIV is actually addressing the question you ask, indirectly, in that he poses the example of somebody doubting a particular canonisation and then proceeds to say what censure such an act would deserve (not quite "heresy").

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:07 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014

John Lane wrote:

RJS wrote:

I simply asked what was behind the ellipses. If the ellipses is in the original, that's all you had to say.

You know, on the face of it you are entirely beyond human help.

There you go again. I think you realize that this conversation has not gone well for you. So you now resort to the transparent tactic of attacking your opponent in order to direct the conversation in another direction, while deleting some of my posts. It is really sad to see you resort to these tactics. I had hoped you were sincere in your position, but your actions during this discussion (and previous discussions) have led me to believe otherwise.

Last edited by RJS on Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum